Related Articles

Domestic Insecurity

Spend enough time in Washington and you become familiar with the doublespeak that politicians use to try to fool ordinary people.

For instance, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003" is the name of legislation that enshrines President Bushs tax cuts for the wealthy while the economy continues to contract and the country loses jobs by the millions. Then theres the USA Patriot Act, whose name implies that its patriotic to give the government unprecedented powers to spy on residents in the name of domestic security.

The laws name suggests to be a good American in the post 9-11 world, you have to give up some civil protections for the collective good. But where is the line between a protected society and a Big Brother-style police state?

No one wants to bear witness to another 9-11. The fact that terrorists could saunter past our law enforcement and immigration authorities to take such advantage of weaknesses in our aviation system was horrific. We needed to close the gaping security loopholes that the terrorists exploited, and I give credit to the Administration and Congress for creating the Transportation Security Administration and the Homeland Security Department to address those problems and beef up our inadequate security situation.

On 9-11 we were scared. On 9-12 we resolved as a nation to stand up and protect ourselves. But if the result is the erosion of the civil liberties that make our democracy the fairest and most successful the world has ever seen, we would give the terrorists another victory.

The Patriot Act was passed by Congress a few weeks after 9-11, and granted the U.S. Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft sweeping powers to eavesdrop, monitor, and generally snoop into the lives, financial and computer records of anyone. Because the law is due to expire in 2005, the Justice Department is now advocating making its powers permanent.

It would be one thing if these new powers granted to the U.S. Justice Department were yielding clues on possible terrorist operations. But a recent report by the General Accounting Office found that less than half of the 7,602 foreign nationals targeted by investigators since 9-11 had been interviewed. The report could cite no examples of arrests or even investigative leads and said "more than half of the law enforcement officers we spoke with expressed concerns about the quality of the questions asked and the value of the responses obtained." And if they can do it to foreigners, how long before they do it to U.S. citizens they dont like?

We need to take some serious stock of our priorities if the free, democratic society we are attempting to protect violates the very foundation of America, the Constitution itself. And we need to think about where were going. If we give up our rights and freedom in small bits, one day we look around and find that whole chunks are missing.

Last year, President Bush used national security as an excuse to waive civil service rules for federal workers. (Youve got to give him creditwhile he argued for "flexibility" by publicly chiding uncooperative senators, he succeeded in painting them as shills for big labor.) He used it with the airport screeners and even the longshoremen in the lockout at the West Coast ports last year. The message was unmistakableunionism equals a threat to security. Unions are incompatible with protecting the homeland.

If this line of thinking is extended, then how far are we from using the same logic to outlaw unions in utilities, defense manufacturing or construction? Already, a proposed restructuring of the U.S. Department of Defense would remove civil service protections for thousands of defense employees.

We have got to plug the security gaps that exist to keep our continent safe. But we must not lose something even more preciousthe very freedom and rights that have made our democratic societies beacons for the world.